This article defends the use of narratives about morally exemplary individuals in moral education and appraises the role that 'nudge' strategies can play in combination with such an appeal to exemplars. It presents a general conception of the aims of moral education and explains how the proposed combination of both moral strategies serves these aims. An important aim of moral education is to make the ethical perspective of the subject-the person being educatedmore structured, more salient and therefore more 'navigable'. This article argues why and how moral exemplars and nudge strategies are crucial aids in this respect. It gives an empirically grounded account of how the emotion of admiration can be triggered most effectively by a thoughtful presentation of narratives about moral exemplars. It also answers possible objections and concludes that a combined appeal to exemplars and nudges provides a neglected but valuable resource for moral education.

Victims of oppression are often called to let go of their anger in order to facilitate better discussion to bring about the end of their oppression. According to Amia Srinivasan (2018), this constitutes an affective injustice. In this paper, we use research on emotion regulation to shed light on the nature of affective injustice. By drawing on the literature on emotion regulation, we illustrate specifically what kind of work is put upon people who are experiencing affective injustice and why it is damaging. We begin by explaining affective injustice and how it can amount to a call for emotion regulation. Then we explain the various techniques that can be used to regulate emotions and explain how each might be harmful here. In the penultimate section of the paper, we explain how the upshot of this is that victims of affective injustice are left with a dilemma. Either they try to regulate their anger in a way that involves ignoring the fact of their oppression or they regulate it in a way that is likely to be harmful for them. Finally, we consider whether there are any good solutions to this dilemma, and how this issue opens up the possibility for further research into emotion regulation and moral philosophy.

What, if anything, is problematic about the involvement of celebrities in democratic politics? While a number of theorists have criticized celebrity involvement in politics, none so far have examined this issue using the tools of social epistemology, the study of the effects of social interactions, practices, and institutions on knowledge and belief acquisition. We will draw on these resources to investigate the issue of celebrity involvement in politics, specifically as this involvement relates to democratic theory and its implications for democratic practice. We will argue that an important and underexplored form of power, which we will call epistemic power, can explain one important way in which celebrity involvement in politics is problematic. This is because unchecked uses and unwarranted allocations of epistemic power, which celebrities tend to enjoy, threaten the legitimacy of existing democracies and raise important questions regarding core commitments of deliberative, epistemic, and plebiscitary models of democratic theory. We will finish by suggesting directions that democratic theorists could pursue when attempting to address some of these problems.

No abstract

In this paper, we investigate three different ways of defending the claim that national football associations ought to pay their men's and women's football teams the same amount. First, we consider an argument that appeals to the principle of equal pay for equal work. We argue that this 'labor rights' argument provides a good reason for some national football associations to pay their men's and women's teams the same amount but that these are the exception rather than the rule. Next, we consider an alternative argument, which appeals to the 'expressive power' of paying women's football teams the same as men's. We argue that this argument can be applied more generally than the first argument and gives a good reason for many football associations to pay their men's and women's teams equally. However, this argument struggles to show that associations have a moral obligation to pay their men's and women's teams the same. We finish by considering the 'argument from historical injustice'. We argue that this argument provides plausible grounds for thinking that many associations not only have moral reasons to pay their men's and women's teams equally, but that they also have a moral obligation and a political responsibility to do so.

What is the motivational profile of admiration? In this article, I will investigate what form of connection between admiration and motivation there may be good reason to accept. A number of philosophers have advocated a connection between admiration and motivation to emulate. I will start by examining this view and will then present objections to it. I will then suggest an expanded account of the connection between admiration and motivation, according to which, admiration involves motivation to promote the value that is judged to be present in the object of admiration. Finally, I will examine the implications of this account for the use of admiration in education.

Is the relation 'is a morally permissible alternative to' transitive? The answer seems to be a straightforward yes. If Act B is a morally permissible alternative to Act A and Act C is a morally permissible alternative to B then how could C fail to be a morally permissible alternative to A? However, as both Dale Dorsey and Frances Kamm point out, there are cases where this transitivity appears problematic. My aim in this paper is to provide a solution to this problem. I will then investigate two ways in which we might justify rejecting the transitivity of the 'is a permissible alternative to' relation.Next, I will look at Dorsey's solution, which involves a reinterpretation of the intuitions used to generate the problem. I will argue that none of these solutions are fully satisfying before going on to provide a novel solution to the problem and argue that it avoids the problems facing the extant solutions. IntroductionIs the relation 'is a morally permissible alternative to' transitive? The answer seems to be a straightforward yes. If Act B is a morally permissible alternative to Act A and Act C is a morally permissible alternative to B then how could C fail to be a morally My aim in this paper is to provide a solution to this problem. I will start in §1 by giving a precise outline of the problem. I will then, in §2, set out three desiderata that a satisfactory solution to the problem should satisfy. In the next two sections I will investigate three potential solutions to the problem that fail to satisfy these three desiderata. First in §3, I will explore two ways in which we might justify rejecting the transitivity of the 'is a permissible alternative to' relation. I will then, in §4 investigate Dorsey's solution, which involves a reinterpretation of the intuitions used to generate the problem in §1. I will then, in §5, lay out a novel solution to the problem which defends a limited form of transitivity by outlining a new theory of moral reasons that holds that there are three different moral roles that reasons can play: a moral 3 Kamm (1985 p.136) makes a similar point.3 justifying role, a moral requiring role and moral favouring role. I will finish in §6 by considering and responding to an objection that could be raised against my solution. The ProblemIn this section I will explain what The Transitivity Problem is. To start I will present three examples:Case One: Suppose that Charlie, a student nurse, is leaving his house one morning to attend a final year exam. As he leaves his house he notices an injured woman, Jane, lying on the pavement. After a quick assessment, it is clear to Charlie that, though her condition is far from critical, Jane needs to go to hospital. Moreover, the more quickly she gets to hospital the less complicated her recovery will be. He is then faced with a choice. He could drive Jane to the hospital himself, this would get her there more quickly but it would also mean missing his exam, as it is being held on the other side of town from the hospital. Missing the exam will mean ha...

Is it permissible to be a fan of an artist or a sports team that has behaved immorally? While this issue has recently been the subject of widespread public debate, it has received little attention in the philosophical literature. This paper will investigate this issue by examining the nature and ethics of fandom. I will argue that the crimes and misdemeanors of the object of fandom provide three kinds of moral reasons for fans to abandon their fandom. First, being a fan of the immoral may provide support for their immoral behavior. Second, fandom alters our perception in ways that will often lead us to be fail to perceive our idol’s faults and even to adopting immoral points of view in order to be able to maintain the positive view we have of them. Third, fandom, like friendship, may lead us to engage in acts of loyalty to protect the interests of our idols. This gives fans of the immoral good reason to abandon their fandom. However, these reasons will not always be conclusive and, in some cases, it may be possible to instead adopt a critical form of fandom.